Re: crash-safe visibility map, take three

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: crash-safe visibility map, take three
Date: 2010-11-30 17:10:49
Message-ID: 28581.1291137049@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> We're not going to double the cost of VACUUM to get index-only scans.
> And that's exactly what will happen if you do full-page writes of
> every heap page to set a single bit.

It's ridiculous to claim that that "doubles the cost of VACUUM". In the
worst case, it will add 25% to the cost of setting an all-visible bit on
a page where there is no other work to do. (You already are writing out
the heap page and the VM page, plus a WAL image of the heap page, so a
WAL image of the VM page adds 25%. But only if you did not set any
other bits on the same VM page, which is probably not a real common
case.) Given that VACUUM has a lot of other cleanup besides visibility
bit setting, I'm not convinced that this would even be noticeable.

I think the burden is on people who are proposing complicated mechanisms
to show that there's actually a strong need for them.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2010-11-30 17:12:35 Re: crash-safe visibility map, take three
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-11-30 17:03:40 Re: Another proposal for table synonyms